Posted on 01/18/2009 9:02:39 AM PST by Polarik
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal...[a] subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head.
(Excerpt) Read more at thisnation.com ...
It's true, they can be. But the DemonRat Congress isn't likely to do that, and the Republicans don't have the votes to do it by themselves.
A violation of everything we know to be just and right, and it will cause huge problems for our military and the defense of our country.
Please, pass it along as you get the chance on other boards/threads
A little knowledge can go a long way to ease (or trouble) the mind.
LOL
Can’t tell the players without a program....
Bill was a bit busy, wasn’t he? Ask the people he screwed in Utah.
Please pass the link along to others as you have the chance.
Like a King's decree. :|
An Executive Order can’t do anything the president doesn’t have legal authority to do.
His idea of a “civilian security force” is scary as Hell. I’m sure he’ll use his EOP to create it and make it a national “Truth Squad” ready to go after anyone who disagrees with his policies, aka “Smears.”
The Gestapo by any other name.
I believe it was “So as it is written, so let it be done”.
President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said he’s been informed that President Obama will support his proposed legislation to make public some opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which issued some of the Bush Administration's most sweeping claims of executive power. Obama also has promised to limit President Bush's practice of using "signing statements" to amend legislation.
"Every day we get indications that they're serious about reversing the abuses of the Constitution," Feingold, a harsh Bush critic, told Politico. Feingold said Obama's staff told him to expect executive orders rapidly reversing Bush policies on the interrogation and detention of terror suspects, and on keeping the records of past presidents secret. He declined to be more specific.
"I don't know in what order or how fast" Obama’s executive orders could come, he said. "It'll be important that a couple of them be done immediately, and I think they will be, to show there's a strong break from the current policy."
Chris Lu, executive director of Obama’s transition team, told supporters in a conference call earlier this month that Obama’s aides have “started developing executive orders that the pres elect is considering –not only ones the President-elect will sign after January 20, but also ones we will want to repeal."
and oxymoron of the millenia...
Obama aides didn't respond to requests for more detail, but the president-elect told an audience at a campaign fundraiser in 2007 about what he called Bush’s abuse of executive authority.
"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president,
(*COUGH* *COUGH* *HACK* *RETCH*)
now that jumped out at me...he's sealed all his records from his past, he can't be investigated now, OR AFTER!
Anyone who needs to lose weight - all they need to do is read 0bamanews and not only will they lose their appetites but maybe even their lunch... I’m queasy already.
picked up this little gem at texasdarlin:
“Looks like the Presidential Oath varies from the Vice Presidential one. Who knew?
Presidential Oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Oath of Vice President:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I’m an Aussie, it looks to me as if someone switched the oaths...just doesn’t make sense to me.
That’s interesting, the VP’s oath seems much stronger.
sorry, further down the page there’s a correction:
“drkate
Correction to my comment…..they took the respective correct oaths of office. Sorry.”
You mean, Mr. Obama, like what they have in China for girl babies?
Technically, he's not a "past President" either.
first of all, the EO pertained to "past Presidents," but more importantly, it cannot be legally used to shield himself from the charges leveled against him before he became President, and ones which have never been resolved.
However, the bigger question concerns whether anything that Obama does as President is legally binding, given that he is an invalid President, was an invalid Senator, and maybe still is an illegal alien?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.